Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
I think that theists do believe things with due evidence. Their notion of what constitutes "due" with respect to evidence is different than yours. That's the point.
|
Okay, I know what you mean. They look at "creation" and know that there is a god while I find this unsatisfactory evidence.
For instance, I recognize the Bible asserting its own truth as circular logic and, thus, uncompelling. However, those unfamiliar with formal logic won't recognize this as a flaw of reasoning and may very well accept the Bible's own testimony of its events as evidence...
The solution seems simple. Educate people on the rules of logic (and other forms of reasoning that they already adhere to) and get them to apply it to their own religion. This education is quite easy if, instead of applying it to their religion, you apply it to some other religion. However, the instant you try to turn these mental tools to their religion, that's when their critical thinking skills suddenly shut off and the ignorant rationalizations start up again.
Logic is great for mathematics, reason is great for science and both are great tools for debunking other people's religion. However, no one seems to think that these tools should be applied to their own religion and that's the exception of which I speak...
Quote:
|
Well, you'll have to reread what roachboy wrote, because he put it better and more succinctly than I have been able to.
|
Okay, after much work, I think I am now able to see what he's trying to say but I swear that his sentences are badly malformed...
Quote:
|
I could come up with a version of "The Courtesan's Reply" here, but since that's bullshit, I'll refrain.
|
I've never heard of this. Is it interesting?
Quote:
Of course his accuracy exists discretely from his demeanor. I don't dismiss his arguments, I don't even know what his arguments are, aside from the few articles I've read or how his arguments are distilled through his followers. Unless he's talking directly to me, I don't care what he thinks.
Let me repeat that. I don't care what Richard Dawkins thinks, I didn't bring him up here, the AWOL Mr. Rotten did. When he did, I replied:
|
While Johnny Rotten likely brought him up 'cause he didn't want to defend his views, himself, he clearly feels that Richard Dawkins can express his views better than he can. In the same way you felt that roachboy stated your view better than you did (although I still find his writing unreadable!), he feels the same way about Dawkins.
In short, I think what Johnny Rotten was saying is that if you care what he thinks (and I'm not saying that you do!) then you should read Dawkins' book...
Quote:
|
I don't know how many scientists you've interacted with. I haven't really interacted all that closely with too many of them, though I spend a good deal of time with them. As someone who has had a couple years of scientific training, I know how I view science, and I don't know that you or Mr. Dawkins are in any position to validate or invalidate my relationship with science or capacity as a scientist. As far as I'm concerned, with respect to the actual doing of science, debate about the relative merits of atheism vs. theism are irrelevant.
|
I agree, one's theism or lack, thereof, has little bearing on how one does science, unless one chooses to make it so. There are plenty of excellent, theistic scientists...
I'm not sure why you're saying this. I was saying that Dawkins knows what science is. What's all this about atheism vs. theism?
Quote:
|
I don't believe in god, and I used to believe that science would provide me with the truth. The more I know about science, the less that seems to be the case. I recognize science as a powerful tool, but I don't expect science to be able to satisfy my curiosity in any sort of lasting way, and I don't begrudge people who go one step further and fill in the blanks themselves, provided they aren't telling me what to do.
|
If you don't mind my saying, I think you had a rather naive view of science. What satisfies your curiosity now, if anything?
Quote:
|
It has been my experience that there is a pretty wide range of theistic belief amongst scientists, from atheists all the way to evangelicals. Many of them seem perfectly capable of being good people and good scientists regardless of whether they subscribe to a belief in god.
|
I agree. One of my favourite scientists working today is... Roman Catholic!
Having said that, most scientists are atheists. The vast majority of the top scientists in the western world (such as members of
The National Academy of Sciences or
The Royal Society) are athiests. Of course, this is correlation and not causation...
Quote:
|
Of the little that I know of Dawkins, the only thing I can think of where I disagree with him specifically (everything else could just be some shit some of his acolytes have told me) is that I disagree with the idea that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. Science is only good for evaluating a subset of reality; it isn't the only means by which one can or should make sense of the world.
|
Many of the claims you make here are contingent on our use of terms...
Claims of vague deism are not falsifiable and, thus, not scientific hypotheses. Even Richard Dawkins agrees with this statement. However, some religions, like Fundamental Christianity, are falsifiable. Basically, any religion that makes factual claims is a scientific hypothesis like any other. The Earth is older than 10,000 years. If your religion relies on that then your religion is simply wrong!
I think science is good for evaluating the whole of reality but I work with a rather stringent definition of the term. For instance, whether
Iron Man is a good movie or not is not an aspect of reality and, thus, is not somethig that can be evaluated scientifically.
Quote:
|
And if this has been kind of rambly, well, we're all adults here, deal with it.
|
Hey, where else may one ramble if not here? I think of web forums as modern day soap boxes...